Well said, Mousepod.

My original entree into this thread was to oppose the "disgusting individual" moniker employed by the OP. I, for one, detest this climate in which certain names and regimes must not be mentioned ever again in polite and informed conversation.

Comparison of tactics and actions does not imply equivalence.

Mr. Durbin's whole point that Americans will not accept the treatment that's been documented in these facilities is lost because some yahoo gets his feeling hurt because some historically documented criminal regimes have used SOME of the same tactics.

Equivalence is not implied. Nobody said we were no different than the Nazis. The point is we're not different ENOUGH!

Sometimes the news just falls in your lap like a big ole Christmas (Non-sectarian winter holiday season, for the ultra libs) present.

This morning, in a Meet the Press discussion on the Guantanamo facility, John McCain said...

Where have I heard that name?

Does Mr McCain realize he's saying that America as a country does not afford the same legal protection to it's Muslim detainees as it did to the Nazis? Does Mr McCain not realize we're at war? Does Mr. McCain not realize that his statements provide comfort and encouragement to the very terrorists that seek to kill our brave soldiers?

What a quandry. Do I now take a giant leap away away from my good senses as well as my understanding of the english language and declare John McCain a disgusting individual? Or do I understand that Mr. McCain is pressing the point that Americans collectively have a standard of treatment for human beings and the recent events brought to light indicate that we are not living up to that standard?

It IS a puzzler ;)

What If..........
 

What If the US did what so many so called human rights orgs want US to do? What if they released all the prisoners (remember, these are people who have sworn they want to destroy America and are highly suspected of doing things to actively achieve that end).

What if some of those released come back at US 5 or 10 years from now.

What if they become responsible for the killing of 10,000 Americans or 100,000? What if they hooked up with someone who has the bomb and manged to kill close to a 1,000,000 Americans?

We already know they want to................

What will those Americans who are screaming to have these prisoners released say then:

1. "Oh, well....can't be afraid all the time...can't live in a bubble" :rolleyes:

2. "My God!......who is responsible for this-------can't be me and my calls for their freedom". "Dam Bush, he did this on purpose to give us a reason to attack (fill in country here)".

3. "It is better to uphold ideals and lose a few million lives then to bend those ideals and lose who we are....when we do that the enemy really wins...blah blah blah"--------yeah right....I am sure the enemy is cheering in the streets when we "bend" our ideals and come at them with everything we got vs when they kill each and every last one of us :p

--------------------------

THEY WANT TO KILL US ALL..........doesn't anybody understand that?

I think people understand completely what they want to do to us, Jeff, but I really don't think holding a bunch of people indefinitely- with no trial or due process of any sort- is making us any safer. What about the borders? Air safety? Port security? There are so many terrorists and potential terrorists out there that we can't possibly catch and incarcerate them all, and it just seems to me that the logical thing to do is make it more difficult for them to enter our country. In the meantime, do we really have to compromise our priciples and standards so very much? If we do, then they have already won. We have fought many wars with people who wanted nothing more than to eliminate us from the face of the earth, and we will never be safe from outside threats. I agree that there are many organizations that have blinders on, namely the UN, Amnesty International, the ACLU, etc, and they do a lot of things that really piss me off, but at the same time they have done a lot of good for this world.

I really am saddened by the willingness to give up so much of what makes our country great, all in the guise of short term safety. It is an illusion- we are no safer now than we were Sept. 10th, 2001. We have done some good thngs since then, such as (apparently) getting rid of the Taliban , but we have also done so many ugly, vicious things, and too many innocents are getting hurt.

We really don't have to go any further than this first paragraph.

You contend, if I don't misunderstand you, that the ultimate goal of the people speaking out about prison abuse is to just have these people released. That is not true. I haven't heard anyone suggest opening the doors and just turning them out. The bringing of evidence and some hearings on that evidence sure would be nice though.

You contend, if I don't misunderstand you, that all the people held in these prison are people who have sworn they want to destroy American. That is also not true. There are reports of people being held for nothing more than immigration violations. It would seem to me that we could get more than 39 convictions out of a pool of 500 prisoners if the place was crawling with sworn terrorists.

Good points all......but....

... if the bringing of evidence with hearings would pose a danger to the US then what?

Ultimately it is their release that many of these people must really want....which would be fine by me if they really were innocents.....but I can't really fathom what would be the gain to anybody high up in the US government to keep innocents in a Cuban Prison???? Somebody explain that one to me please.

I suppose because they can, Jeff. It's the same mindset that had the FBI keeping files on such people as John Lennon, etc, and it's been going on for years. It's just that now they seem to think they have a mandate from the public- "Please protect us and we'll gladly give up any and all rights and liberties we posess , and screw the rest of the world- they're not Americans anyway!" I've no doubt that some nasty types are in Gitmo. I also have no doubt that there are quite a few poor, illiterate sheepherders in there as well, who just happened to get caught up in this mess. Either way, we do not give them any sort of due process whatsoever, and that is wrong. Not only is it wrong, it only reinforces what the bad guys are saying about us.

Since when did the pursuit of truth become injurious to the United States of America?

I'm not trying to be catty, but you've lost me here.

What if I said "Bill Clinton reminds me of Hitler when he speaks."? Would that be inflamatory? They both spoke were generally considered great speech makers. Do you think that would be OK? I'm not meaning to say he is like Hitler in every way. The thing is, in polite society, references to certain things have a certain conotation. I believe Durbin knew exactly that and was trying to draw that image up in relationship to Gitmo, though they are no where near equal. I could draw up any sort of comparison I want under your rules and say that of course I didn't mean what. Of course Clinton isn't like Hitler - he just reminds me of him when he speaks. Of course that would be crap. And if I didn't know how my words would be construed, then I am pretty damn stupid.

When did Eichman get the trial? Oh! That would be after WWII was over. As in after Germany surrendered. I don't think we're quite at that point.